The Republican party is to blame. Too many of them are ideologues who think that compromise is not just a weakness - it's a sin against God. It's impossible to govern that way.

Maybe they just believe in a little something called separation of powers. You know, the thing that keeps Obama from becoming the king so many of his a̶p̶o̶l̶o̶g̶i̶s̶t̶s̶ supporters desire.

"they are nothing if not media savvy."

I agree with you 100 percent in that aspect. The campaigner in chief is more skilled at sleight of hand than a magician. How else can you explain a man with only 143 working days in the senate deciding to form a committee to run for president and people buying into the power of a "community organizer."

Got to love that cult of personality and us vs them mentality.

__________________
People say they like irony, but nobody wants to pay for it.

I didn't say that the sequester was not Obama's idea. My meaning was that it is the Republican's fault that a deal has not been made so that the sequester could have been avoided. Obama was never going to accept something that would not include some new revenue. The Republican's refuse to raise taxes on anyone. At least nominally. My taxes have recently gone up because they let the payroll tax reduction lapse.

See, Pinoy, we can have a reasonable discussion about policy if you will refrain from paranoia about Obama. I don't think that he's deserving of uncritical worship, but for fuck's sake, he is not trying to take everyone's guns so that he can make himself a monarch or dictator anymore than George W. Bush was. Has too much power been concentrated in the executive branch? Yes. Thank you, Bush and Cheney. Obama is now continuing your fine work. So much for your permanent Republican majority.

By being complete obstructionists, the Republicans are just giving Obama cover to use even more executive power. "Well now else am I supposed to get anything done? I have no choice!" Does that justify it? No. But it makes it easier for him to get away with it. And their refusing to compromise has nothing to do with separation of power. It has do to with them being caught in a bind because they have fetishized tax reduction to the point that it is now political death for them to vote for any increase at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinoycosplay

Personally I have no use for party labels since they just reinforce stereotypes.

Much like a person indoctrinated into a particular religion finds it close to inconceivable that anyone, including outsiders, would find their particular doctrines of faith lacking, So too is a person raised in a political system that offers only 2 choices, confused that people exist who would find their parties and labels lacking.

Thankfully, when a person becomes a citizen, they swear allegiance to the constitution, not a political party. From the oath, "Support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and also

__________________
People say they like irony, but nobody wants to pay for it.

Much like a person indoctrinated into a particular religion finds it close to inconceivable that anyone, including outsiders, would find their particular doctrines of faith lacking, So too is a person raised in a political system that offers only 2 choices, confused that people exist who would find their parties and labels lacking.

Thankfully, when a person becomes a citizen, they swear allegiance to the constitution, not a political party. From the oath, "Support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and also

My laughing was not in support of the two party system but at the obviousness of your original statement. Party labels, and labels in general, are stereotypes. It has nothing to do with whether you have two parties or three or four. Of course the two party system is lacking. Duh. In fact, it could be reasonably argued that, as least as far as economics are concerned, we have essentially a one party system as both parties operate more or less at the behest of big business.

So I guess you don't want to discuss policy, huh? Is the deficit the most important problem? Can it be reduced without raising taxes? Is capping deductions or closing loopholes effectively the same thing as raising taxes? Wages have stagnated; business profits are at record highs. If the minimum wage is increased, people will have more money to spend, and the economy should improve, right? Isn't it better for people to earn more than for the government to just give them money? Interested in any of this?

Or do you just want to feel all superior because you as a naturalized citizen love freedom so much more than I possibly could?

hag, too bad 90 percent of communication is non verbal, because my own personal communication style doesn't translate that well to text only due to my inherent sarcastic, dry humor style.

Actually i agree with earlier statements about the sequester just being much ado about nothing. Yes there are cuts, but frankly cuts need to be made. I think the real argument needs to be where the cuts will be made.

Every group wants to protect their own funding (low income people wanting to protect current level of social services) or stop funding parts of government they find bothersome (corporations desiring to get rid of government regulation by reducing funding of enforcement)

As far as increasing the minimum wage, it is true that minimum wage workers earn less than minimum wage workers from the 60s. However, raising the minimum wage, probably isn't the solution. Economics proves that increasing the minimum wage will simple result in fewer jobs overall and increase the rate of inflation.

For example I read how fast food places are already experimenting with computerized order takers. If the minimum wage goes up to 10 dollars an hour you can be sure that it will only hasten the adoption of "self checkout" stations at fast food places.

I can tell you one thing that would help American workers. Enforce strict penalties against employers who employ illegal immigrants. It is the flood of cheap labor that depresses wages.

I'm sure we both love freedom equally, but different people of course will have different perspectives based on a myriad of factors.

__________________
People say they like irony, but nobody wants to pay for it.

hag, too bad 90 percent of communication is non verbal, because my own personal communication style doesn't translate that well to text only due to my inherent sarcastic, dry humor style.

Pinoy, I would have never guessed that you were being humorous. To me, your posts usually read as enraged. But I take you at your word. As exasperating as I often find you, you also bring up points that no one else here does. I said it earlier - this thread can be an echo chamber and that's a bad thing. More than once in replying to one of your posts I have gone to back to check on a quote or incident only to find that it was not exactly what I remembered or that it had been taken out of context and didn't really support my argument. Re-assessing and adjusting my views when necessary makes my arguments stronger. Only talking to people who always agree with you is neither very interesting nor intellectually healthy. I used to read Christopher Hitchens for the same reason even though he could be infuriating. So all in all, I'm glad that you post here.

YES, VIMES! I JUST COMPARED PINOY WITH HITCHENS! DEAL WITH IT!!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinoycosplay

Actually i agree with earlier statements about the sequester just being much ado about nothing. Yes there are cuts, but frankly cuts need to be made. I think the real argument needs to be where the cuts will be made.

I think we've past the point where straight-forward cuts are going to be sufficient to change anything. We need a huge entitlement overhaul - most obviously in healthcare. Obamacare, or any other program, will fail miserably if costs are not addressed. While I'm glad that healthcare reform was a major issue in Obama's first term, it is frustrating beyond belief that they were not even discussing the actual problem which is cost control. They avoided it partly because it is going to require changing tort law, which is a Democratic sacred cow, and partly because it's going to require a hard look at end of life care which makes up a large percentage of Medicare costs. That's going to piss off old people and they are more likely to vote than young people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinoycosplay

Every group wants to protect their own funding (low income people wanting to protect current level of social services) or stop funding parts of government they find bothersome (corporations desiring to get rid of government regulation by reducing funding of enforcement)

Agreed. See my last two sentences above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinoycosplay

As far as increasing the minimum wage, it is true that minimum wage workers earn less than minimum wage workers from the 60s. However, raising the minimum wage, probably isn't the solution. Economics proves that increasing the minimum wage will simple result in fewer jobs overall and increase the rate of inflation.

I am skeptical that "economics" ever proves anything. The global economy is a complex system. Economists devise theories and models to try to understand it and predict outcomes. They are not terribly successful (see: crash, housing market, 2008). There are conflicting studies on the effect of minimum wage on employment (many of them no doubt partisan). I'm skeptical about a number of assertions on both sides of the argument, but tend to agree with you that it isn't much of a solution. OTOH, I have to consider the morality of a society where someone can work full time and yet still live below the poverty line. I don't know what the answer is but "do nothing because poor people are stupid and lazy" shouldn't be one of the options.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinoycosplay

I can tell you one thing that would help American workers. Enforce strict penalties against employers who employ illegal immigrants. It is the flood of cheap labor that depresses wages.

Yeah, don't see that happening though. Cheap labor benefits business and both parties are beholden. Plus you'd have to make the penalties big enough to hurt otherwise the businesses just take their slap on the wrist and carry on. Which is what they do with environmental and banking laws.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinoycosplay

I'm sure we both love freedom equally, but different people of course will have different perspectives based on a myriad of factors.

Thank you. When both parties agree that everyone is starting out with good intentions, it is possible to debate and compromise. This is why I hate the segment of the Republican party that insists that Obama's, goal, his actual purpose is to weaken and destroy America. With that assumption, compromise and governing becomes impossible. My greatest fear is not that this faction of the Republican party (trying not to stereotype all Republicans) will destroy Obama - it's that they will destroy the Republican party. Frighteningly, they seem to be well on their way.